Hanging out with Joe Trippi
Last night and this morning I was hanging out with Joe Trippi, among other luminaries (we were presenting at a PR/marketing event at KOMO-TV/Radio this morning). I don’t usually talk about politics here, but Joe gave his insights and thought I’d share them.
In the 2008 election he expects that Hillary Clinton will be a lockin for the Democrats. He doesn’t see anyone who can challenge her from the Democratic side. On the right side he’s expecting a far more conservative than even George Bush is. Why? His reasoning is that the powerbase that put George Bush in power is mad that they haven’t gotten things done, for instance, repealing of abortion and other conservative issues. He doesn’t think that a moderate Republican has any chance in getting nominated at all. If that weren’t bad enough, he theorized that a Democrat would split ranks and run as an independent. He isn’t sure how this would play out, but it probably wouldn’t be good for Hillary, who’ll have a tough time getting elected anyway.
Anyway, that’s the doom and gloom from my conversations with Joe. Admittedly he has his own biases. He says there’s no way that he can see working in American Presidential politics again.
Oh, and he says that Republicans are far more blog savvy than the Democrats are and are spending more resources on the Internet. His blog is at JoeTrippi.com, but he apologizes that he hasn’t been able to blog much lately. He’s been consulting with politicians outside the US and businesses like IBM, so he’s been away from the computer too much.
2008 sure will be interesting to watch to see if his predictions come true.
Powered By 
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Scoble,
Joe Trippi btw a while ago wrote an editorial where he predicted that the two-party system would give way, not just because of dissatisfaction with the two parties that we saw with the maverick candidacies of people like Perot, but because the Internet, especially through mediums like blogging, allow people to organize in non-traditional ways and bypass the barriers in traditional party building.
Here is a URL to his editorial:
The parties march toward extinction
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5591533/
“The Internet is making the two parties, as they now stand, obsolete.”
A lot of people give credit to his management of Howards Dean campaign for the first succesful use of the internet in party operations. I was involved in the Reform Party while it was still viable, though, and with as limited sucess as we had, many people don’t realize that the party mainly functioned and was organized through the Internet. Members of the national committee would discuss issues, and do party business through email groups, where others interested could participate. Major party activists would regularly come on Efnet IRC, where we had Ross Perot, Pat Choate, and others come on frequently for moderated discussions. We had a lot of success organizing the party through the Internet that would be impracticable to do through traditional means, because of lack of existing organization. Now that the
Internet is more mature, and I believe the time is even more ripe for a centrist third party than in 1992, I think Trippi’s arguments have merit.
At any rate I respect Joe Trippi a lot more than I respect Howard Dean. He was the real political brains behind the early Dean campaign and not Dean himself (who I find to be naive and in over his head politics-wise)
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Brian: what you say matches what Joe told me almost word-for-word. It’s also very clear that Joe was the brains behind the blog, not Howard. Of course we already knew that, but it was good to hear it from Joe himself.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
We need a 3rd party. One with the fiscal conservatism and small government that the Republicans preach (but don’t practice) and the non-craziness of the Democrats (ie, gay marriage and abortion is OK - not an insult to your God).
Oh yeah, and we can stop large hand outs to get things passed.
No presidential candidate that I see even comes close to being transparent, good-natured, and extremely intelligent… all the thing one expects from a business now days.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
He says there’s no way that he can see working in American Presidential politics again.
A Benedict Arnold within his own Party, and pure acid to the other. But surely someone at DNC would take him on, now that the gadfly Dean is less vile to the Democratic Party. Or too flaky for even the Demo’s?
Still tho, the media or something like the mayday Air America might take him on. Could be a media darling, tossing out outrageous zappers here and there, to stir the Eastern Establishments all up over nothing, and provide endless Powerline and Limbaugh fodder. I say go media. Otherwise cook to foreign countries that haven’t caught onto the bubbleish nature of the hype.
Rep’s are more mad over immigration and the Miami port row, and mad that W. hasn’t carpet bombed the Middle East already. Hillary is not a shoo-in, if she is, then DNC is a shoo-out. But she will have to bend twist and flap to stay Middle-America viable, ending up ticking everybody off, esp. her base, no one will trust her. And a Hillary nomination, is secrectly a Republican wet dream.
But something Reaganish, minus the Dot.com Valley and Enronish free-market Libertarians, someone preaching a strong SEC, and strong on the war on terror and strong on the upcoming war with Iran, is what we will end up with. I don’t see Demo’s as having a prayer of a chance. Presidentialwise that is, midterm they could score some hits, as Rep’s major upset with W.’s wishy washyness.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
“Oh, and he says that Republicans are far more blog savvy than the Democrats are and are spending more resources on the Internet”
In what way? The left wing blogs seem to be better at mobilizing grass roots money, manpower, and information than the prominent right wing ones IMO, and I read about 20 different ones (although about 3-1 in favor of left-wing), so is he basing that on some particular number(s)?
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Howard Dean was on the Microsoft campus yesterday and had some interesting things to say about 2008 and what they were doing to recreate the democratic party. It will definitely be an interesting election. It is so much better listening to these guys in person, whether you agree or not, instead of just hearing what the press has to say or what soundbite they let you hear.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Topper,
What you’re describing is a sort of libertarianism which I don’t agree with and I don’t think the majority of Americans would support. Instead I think people see the extremes on both sides of issues of things like gay marriage and abortion; or on fiscal issues or trade or immigration issues; and want reasonable compromises. Very good compromises have been proposed but get little attention. Both sides have tried to position themselves toward the center, and have made half decent attempts but I think our politics are so fundamentally corrupt that it is impossible to rely on them for progress on these issues.
I’m not sure I’d agree with Trippi that the Republicans are going to end up with a candidate to the right of George W Bush. Its true that the Republican base is dissatisfied with him, but it would be more over fiscal issues, since Bush has allowed the budget to bloat. I don’t think the constituency of the Republican part which is against abortion or gay marriage will really be dissatisfied. Most Republicans against abortion for instance aren’t the extremists they have the image of being, most are just against third trimester abortions and support things like parental notification. I think they are also satisfied with Bush’s push for faith-based initiatives. Most states have passed ballot initiatives against gay marriage, so I’m not sure how that will be an issue to rile anyone up. I’m sure if Condoleeza Rice would be game, the Republican Party would nominate her, though I know she isn’t considering it. She is not what you would call right of the President.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Joe Trippi tends to be a little wild-eyed and more enthusiastic about the Internet’s capabilities to turn the political world upside down than I am. Already politicians are adapting and finding that with a little payola they can get the big political blogs to put out their message for them — unfortunately it’s turning out to not exactly be the “power to the people” aesthetic that Trippi gets excited about.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:05 pm
[...] I guess this, oddly enough, from MSN’s tech blogger Robert Scoble: In the 2008 election he expects that Hillary Clinton will be a lockin for the Democrats. He doesn’t see anyone who can challenge her from the Democratic side. On the right side he’s expecting a far more conservative than even George Bush is. Why? His reasoning is that the powerbase that put George Bush in power is mad that they haven’t gotten things done, for instance, repealing of abortion and other conservative issues. He doesn’t think that a moderate Republican has any chance in getting nominated at all. If that weren’t bad enough, he theorized that a Democrat would split ranks and run as an independent. He isn’t sure how this would play out, but it probably wouldn’t be good for Hillary, who’ll have a tough time getting elected anyway. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Republicans got into the blogging game earlier and were quoted by the mainstream press more often because the liberal-leaning editors felt they needed to balance the views, but I don’t subscribe to the theory that conservative bloggers are more “savvy”. Look at http://www.HuffingtonPost.com, it’s liberal bloggers galore over there. On the right-wing Internet landscape, Drudge is a big star, but he is really not a blogger, as we know the blogging format to be.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Republicans got into the blogging game earlier and were quoted by the mainstream press more often because the liberal-leaning editors felt they needed to balance the views, but I don’t subscribe to the theory that conservative bloggers are more “savvy”. On the right-wing Internet landscape, Drudge is a big star, but he is really not a blogger, as we know the blogging format to be.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
President Hillary was predicted in 1999 by my Friend Liz of Naxos, who has never been wrong, even though I thought she was crazy most of the time (and probably is - crazy but right). She’s a nice lady from New Zealand , a multiple PHD archaeologist who lives on the greek island of Naxos (http://www.naxosnet.com)
Guess it gives her perspective, but like I say, she’s never wrong when calling an election, and I’ve known her a long time….In any case, it should be a passionate election season, probably starting soon….
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
My simple predictions:
1) Hillary will not be the Democratic Candidate in ‘08. She has huge negative numbers, and not just with Republicans. It doesn’t even matter why - it’s just the way it is.
2) McCain will not be the Republican candidate. There’s a huge amount of anger against him on the Republican side, over McCain/Feingold *cough* reform *cough*.
3) If I’m wrong, and one of those two gets on the ticket of their party, watch them lose for the same reason Kerry did - Senators simply don’t get elected President. It’s too easy for the other side to make them out as a flip-flopper, based solely on the normal workings of the Senate (you try to explain, in public, 6 or 10 votes that look contradictory, but make sense based on whcih amendments were or were not attached). For the same reason, Frist won’t make it very far, nor will any of the other senators, of either party. If we get a really weird Senator vs. Senator race, this all goes in the wash, of course. But it would surprise me, a lot.
4) That leaves governors. The strongest Democratic ones (does not mean they’ll get the nod) would be Warner and Richardson. On the Republican side, that leaves Romney and Allen (yes, he’s a Senator, but he was a governor first). I’m sure there are darker horse possibilities (Bredesen of Tennessee, and Erlich of Maryland, for instance).
One thing I’m very sure of - other than Allen, I doubt that any sitting Senator will win election. Nor will anyone with only Senate experience (Edwards).
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:10 pm
It is true that many conservatives have abandoned Bush and the entire Republican party. He is a domestic Socialist, signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill which stomped all over the first amendment.
When the Republicans got back into “power” one would think they would return to the policies of Ronald Reagan. That has not happened.
For 2008:
1) To vote for a Democrat - an act of treason.
2) To vote for a Republican - wrong.
3) It’s third-party time. The U.S. Constitution party or Libertarian party is the only smart choice.
4) Hillary will run unchallenged for the 2008 ticket. To challenge her is to become the next Vince Foster. :-)
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
The so-called “Hillary’s negatives” have been brought up many times before. When she was running for the New York senate seat, people called her a “carpetbagger”; they said she was this, she was that. Guess what, the lady did her homework, worked the precincts, convinced her base and then some. Many of her opponents have a tendency to underestimate her, which simply juices her up. Pat Buchanan, the arch-conservative, has on many occasions said Hillary has “got this thing (Democratic nomination) locked up in 2008″. Bush Jr. used the word “formidable” to describe Hillary. They know what they are talking about.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Couple things. Hillary will run. Democrats have no one else. The rest are pretenders. The left wing press, media and Hollywood are setting it up for the czarina.
The Republicans better advertising some governors - right now!
I like the Constitution or Liberatarian Party idea, but a three party system will not work. Think about it. A president elected with a 36% to 33% to 31% majority will not be able to keep over 60% of the population civil. Heck, the Democrats can’t put the country first now.
The Democrats would have to be killed off as a political party and the Republicans will be the new socialist-lites that the Democrats abandoned for the communist side.
The Constitution Party or Libertarians would need to fill the void.
In order for this to happen, the Republicans must start winning in landslides in BLUE (Republican) states and the Democrats losing in many RED (Democrat) states.
If you remember, the liberal press and media swapped the colors given to the states for the parites during the Carter presidential race. I just changed it back to where it belongs.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Mr Sun,
Drudge isn’t a Republican, and isn’t really a conservative in any traditional sense. Its a misconception of him based almost soley on the fact that he broke the Lewinsky scandal.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I think that Joe Trippi is wise to get out of politics. He seems to see things through blue-colored glasses a bit more than is healthy for someone in his line of work. Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee, not unless the Democrats are even dumber than I think they are. She’s not electable. As shown in recent polls 51% of people say they wouldn’t vote for her “no matter what”, and frankly, the Republicans would have to nominate Satan himself before I’d even give her a first thought, much less a second one (Ok, that’s over the top, but you get what I mean).
The Republicans will probably not nominate someone to the right of GW, although that wouldn’t be hard, but they will nominate someone interested in national security, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility. Social views won’t be much of a factor, as long as those three points are met. This is particularly true if Bush gets a third justice sometime in the next 3 years.
However, one thing I do agree with Trippi on is that we may be close to the end of the two party system in America. I think that if the Democrats don’t take back at least one of the Senate, House, or White House by 2008 that the party will fragment between the Kossacks and what used to be known as “Southern Democrats” (strong on national defense, more socially liberal than Republicans).
Oh, and as an aside…if you can’t make a decision about a political candidate or a judge/justice without thinking about the a-word, then you need to go out and buy a clue, and if you’re holding a political office, you need to resign, because you’re trapped in the 1980s. As much as the left-wingers fear it, and right-wingers dream of it, Roe v. Wade is never going away. There will be times when it will be expanded, and other times when it will be reigned in some, but the basic decision is not going to be overturned. Not without a dramatic realignment of American views and of the Court. There’s far too much “stare decisis” for the Court to overturn it, unless it’s a slam-dunk decision (at least 7-2, probably, which would require three more Scallia’s on the court…not gonna happen).
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Train your 2 french words about presidential led by women :cool:
-> http://iblog.typepad.com/iblog/2006/02/le_sicle_des_.html
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I think Trippi’s comment about Republicans being more blog savvy is just as much a comment on the GOP’s outreach to bloggers behind the scenes as the actual blogs Republicans have produced. Regarding the campaign blogs themselves, I think Democrats have done a better job of embracing the spirit of the blog phenomenon - allowing comments, creating lots of open threads for discusson, etc. But it can definitely be argued that Republican blogs have been more effective because they are very focused and on message. There is no wasted motion.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:24 pm
all Drudge does is post news links.. He doesn’t even comment on this. So, I’m always nonplussed why people think of him as some commentator, blogger, or opinionmaker..much less try to smack a political label on him. If anything, he’s merely an opportunist. He saw a great story with the Lewinsky scandal and made himself a name off it it. I’d be willing to be that if he found a similar scandal when GWH Bush was in office, he would have done he same.
And I can only pray the Dems keep Dean as the party chair and push for Billary to be the nominee. It will show how completely out of touch they are with mainstream America. Can they continue to be that dumb and politically tone deaf.
And Trippi is being delusional if he thinks a 3rd party will ever become viable. Now will the Dems morph into another party? Possibly. But we will continue to have a two party system.. at least on the national level.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Dmad,
I agree that its hard now to see how a third party can form that will become viable. But its also obvious that the public has been wanting an alternative and have been alienated from existing politics; when the Reform Party still hadn’t fallen apart there was public interest and support at least as show in polls and petitions, despite relatively poor showing at election time. I think its also obvious that any movement for reform or an alternative to what has been the status quo has to happen outside the two existing party machines, which are corrupt.
My idea has always been if existing members of both parties would jump ship at once then there can be a viable movement. In fact this is how new viable parties have always started in American history. I also strongly disagree with the accepted idea that the reason that third parties can’t do well is a winner-take-all system. If you study the 19th century electoral dynamics were completely different than they are today, for many reasons (–after every so often the two parties would collapse, and a host of new parties would compete, before the country stabilized on two parties again–and this is only talking about the national level; the state and local level always had more parties). I think if not for many factors which make our politics corrupt, the Republican and Democratic parties would have collapsed years ago.
Many Republicans are talking about how the Democrats are on the verge of collapsing, because there is discontent with the weakness of the leadership and tension some of the more left-wing positions taken by those who are vocal. But the Republican party is just as much divided–the only thing that is keeping them together is the fact that they hold on to the Presidency, which is keeping dissenters relatively quiet. Those in power in the Republican party are trying to frame the party as a capitalist/internationalist free-trade party, marginalizing the many Republicans who disagree, and others who have disagreed with the abandonment of many of the principles in the 1994 Republican revolution. As soon as there is no longer a Republican president, the GOP will look as much in dissaray as the Democrats do to many today.
Watch what happens if Hillary Clinton wins. Yes a lot of people hate her, but I bet you Republicans will not have any good candidates. The Republican slate in 2008 will probably look like the Democratic slate in 2004–a bunch of losers. They will probably pick the candidate they guess has the best chance of winning, as the Democrats picked Kerry, and how in 2000 both parties picked Bush (president’s son) and Gore (vice president). Except this time they’ll have depleted options. And Hillary will win for the same reason Bush did, because she will be competing against losers.
Something has to give way in our political system, there will be a mess.
To me too its hard to see how at this point any third party movement can take shape and be viable. But Joe Trippi is absolutely right when he says the Internet is making some independent movement more practicable. At any rate, something I think will happen, I think everyone involved in politics sees that the two parties as they are can’t continue as they are. And you can’t always assume things will be the same.
Don’t you agree?
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:38 am
Chris, the Democrats ARE that dumb. Hillary will be the nominee. #14 Dave highlighted why she will be.
The Republicans just need a GOOD LOOKING conservative governor to run and they win - no contest.
The best looking candidate has won every election since television. Review the pictures of the candidates and you tell me I’m wrong.
UNLESS a recession/depression hits in 2007, the Republicans keep the White House.
If the economy tanks - which I predict it will - then the Czarina takes over, AND she never leaves office. The Democrats are not going to trust the vote any longer - like all good communists finally stop.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:24 am
all Drudge does is post news links.. He doesn’t even comment on this. So, I’m always nonplussed why people think of him as some commentator, blogger, or opinionmaker
I am guessing you aren’t in the news biz. News selection is a form of commentary unto itself, he dominates the daily paper selection coverage, he controls the national agenda and he can MAKE or SINK films just by linking to various stories. Don’t underestimate his power. Gushy tripeish blogger comments are not needed. He’s the National Editor-in-Chief. And I’d sell a kidney to help him.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:33 am
Joe Trippi - IT Conversations
http://tinyurl.com/h3rkt
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:50 am
Brian,
No, I don’t agree. The Republicans were out of the White House for most of the 90’s and I didn’t see (as much of) the complete loss of focus that exemplifies the Democratic leadership of today. Yes, the Republicans lost their way in Monica-gate, and Starr-gate, but they didn’t try to bring down the White House with every time there was a strange smell emanating from the Potomac. I don’t recall any Republican leader ever saying “I hate Democrats.” as Dean has said about Republicans, or “Democrats are thugs” as Kerry has said about Republicans.
That’s the difference. All parties act a little weird when they’re out of power, which is unfortunate, but I think the Democrats have gone beyond that. Ironically, I think you can blame the blogosphere for some of this. Democrats feel they must repond to the most vocal and most activist portions of their party, because that’s where the noise and money is coming from, but that just further drives a wedge between them and middle-America.
The Republicans (so far) have managed to avoid such a schism. And the Republicans may not have many options in 2008, as you say, but then that will just make 2008 a replay of 1988, I think. All the Republicans have to do is find someone less offensive to middle America than Hillary, or at least paint their candidate that way (as they did with Bush 41 vs. Dukakis).
You want some dream tickets for middle America? I’ll give you two. Both of these tickets would have problems with the extremists, but both would be wildly successful with the middle and be tough to beat. As a matter of fact, I think the first one would have no trouble picking up 350+ EV, and against Hillary would likely get over 400 EV.
#1 (R) McCain/Powell - If you’re a moderate Republican, then this ticket has it all. Strength on National Defense, experience in foreign relations, little “baggage” or at least little of the kind that middle America cares about, popular with the media, etc. Yes, I know about McCain/Feingold, and I know that neither of these are as hawkish as the current residents of the White House. But, that last just strengthens their appeal to the middle. Finally, the addition of Powell to the ticket virtually guarantees a better showing than 8% among blacks, and if that number even gets to 12%, no Democrat ticket has a chance. Problems with the base are that they’re both a bit weak on the a-word, and as I said, perhaps not hawkish enough for some.
#2 (D) Warner/Richardson (Gov. NM) - Once again, this Democratic ticket plays well with the middle. Warner’s a popular former Governor from a red state, and Richardson is known and liked from his Clinton years. Richardson also is a governor who deals with border security issues and has shown himself to be tough on this issue (in many ways tougher than the Bush administration). They’re both from south of the Mason-Dixon line which has shown itself to be hugely important in selecting a winning Presidential candidate. Neither are idealogues, and have shown themselves willing to stray from the party line in the interests of their constituents. The Republicans would have a very difficult time defeating this ticket. I’m not sure that any ticket other than the one I mentioned earlier could do it.
Of course, the state of the economy and war on terror and middle east will play a huge role in 2008 as well. If the economy tanks and the war on terror goes south, Republicans will face an uphill battle. On the other hand, if the economy continues to grow, and the war on terror has enough successes to point to, the Democrats will face an uphill battle.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:56 am
Joe Trippi raised 20 million $ for Howard Dean on the Web and then spent most of it on negative TV ads and leaflets attacking Dick Gephardt in Iowa.
Dick Gephardt was a good man, Trippi’s strategy backfired and he was fired.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Chris J Breisch,
I think the situation was different in the 90s than it would be if Republicans lost power right now. They only had any ground in the 90s because of the 1994 Republican Revolution, which came on the heels of Perot’s issues and his run btw, and because of the leadership of Newt Gingrich. Also, keep in account that Bush only narrowly defeated Kerry, which shows the country is divided on the parties. The Republicans will have no new momentum–and the many issues I raised about divisions in the party will show. There are many Republican congressmen, and Republican constituents, who are not completely satisfied, but are quieted as they’re drawn into the debate over whether Bush is a great satan, either by self-censorship or by lack of media coverage. Because that is the debate there is also no reason to attack Democrats, just defend themselves. And when they attack they won’t call Democrats thugs, but crazies. There was some virulent rhetoric against ‘liberals’ in the 90s that will come back.
I think McCain in a real serious election would not do well. People have this idea that he can because he’s popular and has some image of being a maverick. But what people I think don’t realize is that this is just an image, created by the media, and something which he is always eager to pay in to. If you take the lone issue of campaign finance reform, he has never been able to be articulate about it; when he was in debates, when the subject came up all he did was pepper in the phrase ’special interests’ into every other sentence, never anything eloquent. In fact, he was never able to debate very eloquently about any issue. He lost the debates he was in. McCain’s popularity is the creation of the media, and as soon as he has to debate, he will fall. He will also be faced with a reputation for instability.
[
And as a sidenote, I think its a joke when anyone tries to use the McCain-Feingold bill to discredit any campaign finance reform. Serious non-partisan groups which were in favor of campaign finance reform were always against the bill. It really did very little at all, with the image of doing a lot. I don't think people realize how little it did as an effort to reform. Also, no third parties supported it, because the bill actually penalizes third parties, making it harder for them to do well in elections. So people who try to use the bill as an example of the failure of campaign finance reform are really most of the time, talking out of their rear.
Then people target 527 groups as the result of genuine campaign finance reform--which i don't think they are. But even the criticism of them I believe is farsighted. What if all we had were 527 groups, and no PACs (which the bill did nothing about)? What that would mean would just be is that all of the muck is out in the open, rather behind closed doors. Campaign finance reform isn't different than a war on drugs or a war on terror, there is no way to end corruption, there are just ways to make things more transparent. Corporations are banned, btw, from donating directly to candidates, and this was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court (and you can see in the founders writings tacit support). The issue is the ways that exist to funnel in money. The Court has wanted to protect issue advocacy groups while preventing graft and de-facto bribery.
]
Powell will not run, and I don’t think Warner or Richardson will ignite anyone’s attention. (Border security and immigration, btw, are some of the issues which are dividing Republicans under the tent). I think if there ever was a contest between Guliani and Hillary Clinton it would be a battle, but we’re probably never going to get there.
By the way, there is a lot of speculation that New York mayor Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent, even though he’s now denying any plans.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Well looks like Dean is still person non grata…
“WA Dem Gov Refuses To Be Photographed With Dem Chair Howard Dean…”
April 24th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
[...] After ZDNet senior editor David Grober updated today’s blog about Xerox CEO Anne Mulcahy with her photo, I wondered if perhaps these could all be the same woman? From left to right, Xerox turnaround artist Anne Mulcahy, HP turnaround wannabe Carly Fiorina, and the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee (according to Joe Trippi by way of Robert Scoble) Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Comments | Blog This | E-mail This | Print This | Permalink [...]
August 8th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Here are some links that I believe will be interested
August 14th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Let it be known that Hank Dagny is a liar and a fake. He can’t stand anyone smart enough to kick his butt in a fair debate. In fact, he won’t even let you have a fair debate.
Hank will only debate you on his website, and when you start to show how foolish Hank’s arguments are, he starts deleting your comments and kicking you off his system.
Then he claims you left the debate because you couldn’t stand up to him.
Twice now, over several years, I’ve answered his call to debate him, and twice now he or his cronies have censored my messages by deleting them outright.
And yet he has the gall to claim I left the debate.
Hank is a liar who doesn’t have the guts to stand up like a man and debate without censorship. But don’t take my word for it: look for any posts by me, Elroy, since he started deleting my posts in mid July. You won’t find any because he deletes them rather than debate me man to man.
Try it out for yourself. Make enough good arguments and see if he doesn’t start deleting you too. Who knows how many people he’s deleted and then claimed victory since they don’t post anymore (or can’t post anymore, as the case may be).
He’s a chicken who likes to crow but can’t stand true debate or discussion.
Enjoy,
Elroy